Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyDm" data-source="post: 6861648" data-attributes="member: 6788973">We approach the game from a very different design space. If I have a party that is priding itself on using optimal tactics and obliterating overwhelming threats and generally being soulless killing machines, I would have the monsters try to fight back in the most efficient way possible. I'm not going to leave something as basic as destroying a wooden bow off the table.And note: If a sharpshooter is really this vulnerable to lockdown, is he really using an optimal strategy in the first place?Especially if we're looking at this from the meta  perspective exemplified by things like "monsters should probably be running from PCs."  Why wouldn't monsters use the rules to their advantage?On the flip side, if the players want to go on a fun romp and focus more on the story, with big dumb brutes and sickly mages and the like, then I'll probably accommodate them. And perhaps I won't break their bows. But in general your perspective seems very alien to me. You live in a place where the DM is always wrong and the players are always right. If the players use cheese, that's a sign of player skill and optimization. If the DM uses cheese, that's denying player fun. The rules should support optimized players out of the gate, and provide challenges, but not deny any of their abilities.  It's a tall order, and not one that makes a lot of sense to me.</blockquote>